• The Management Models Pocketbook
• The Handling Resistance Pocketbook
• Brilliant Influence
• Brilliant Time Management
• Brilliant Stress Management

This is proving too complex, so I have decided to consolidate these into one blog, on my principal website at mikeclayton.co.uk.

To read blogs linked to the Handling Resistance Pocketbook, please go here.

Action, please

If you subscribe to these posts, please would you re-subscribe to my blog here, in the sidebar.

If you want to subscribe to my separate email newsletter, just let me know your name and email address, and I’ll send you valuable extra tips and thoughts every month.

From one Model to many…

It was around 2004 when a client asked me to extend a presentation skills programme to offer advanced workshops and coaching to small groups. Among their particular challenges, one came up again and again: hostile audiences. The nature of their business and the presentations they needed to give meant that in their audiences were often professionals from other organisations who had a good reason to criticise their work. My client’s team needed to handle adversarial challenges to their work.

In building a toolkit of skills and methods to offer participants, I wanted to give a way that a speaker could diagnose quickly and accurately the nature of the resistance that they were getting. With this, they could adapt their response to handle the challenge effectively. I started playing with the Onion Model to derive a version adapted to resistance to ideas in a presentation. It worked splendidly. Participants were quickly able to discern what lay behind an audience challenge and refer swiftly to effective techniques to handle it positively and courteously. I now had two Onion Models.

The third came much more quickly. It was an ad hoc response to a question about sales objections during a consulting skills course. Asked how to handle objections, I responded that “it depends on the nature of the objection.” You can guess where I went from there. The group found solutions as I fed their examples into a six-layer framework, and I codified The Sales Resistance Onion Model there and then: they loved it!

The string of onion models is at five now. I pitched The Handling Resistance Pocketbook^[5] to the editor of Management Pocketbooks and developed the fourth, for resistance to formal learning, as a part of the outline I prepared. The fifth appeared in last month’s Training Journal, as the Onion Model of Resistance to Engagement^[6].

… and back to One Model

The editing process is rigorous for such a tight format as Management Pocketbooks, where every word must count. Sadly for me, the Onion Model of Resistance to Formal Learning was left on the editor’s floor. The biggest challenge, however, was when Ros, my editor, asked for a single, unifying language for all of the Onion Models. The “I don’t…” format meant that each onion had its own labels for each level, reflecting the particulars of the context.

I had never actively thought about the unifying concept behind each level. I knew intuitively that it was there, but by rejecting simplistic labels and jargon, I had avoided taking the time to figure out what they were. But this was a task I relished. It allowed me to wrestle with underlying concepts and play with words: lovely. Some words were easy to find: others were a struggle. I worried for a long time – and still do – that too many people will be unfamiliar with the word enmity (and that I will mis-spell it!) I also worried that people will mis-read content (what’s in it) as content (feeling comfortable). In the text, I could be clear about meanings, but in a simple graphic, there is scope for confusion.

This does allow me to point out that, while the best models need no explanation; very few are that good. Always read the instructions on the tin. A great example is Tuckman’s model of group formation^[2] – the words he chose are so simple that people interpret them for themselves, without reading his research.

Is the Onion Model Right?

There are three answers to this. Pick whichever you like.

1. “Yes, it is right”
   It works very well in explaining and predicting resistance. It covers a huge proportion of real world scenarios. Participants, audiences and clients like its insights and simplicity.
2. “No, it is wrong”
   It over-simplifies a complex set of human responses and misses out many subtle variations. It fails to predict accurately the progress in some real-world situations.
3. “That’s the wrong question”
   Models are neither right nor wrong: they are either useful or not. When we apply a useful model in an appropriate domain, if offers valuable insight and usable predictions. In an inappropriate domain, even the best model will fail.

Model builders try to make the domain in which their model applies, as wide as possible. They try to extend their model to greater extremes of experience. And they also try to pare it down to its simplest form. These are conflicting objectives, so model-building is a balancing task. The extent to which a model is “right” is the degree to which users find the balance of simplicity and subtlety to be useful.

However, there is one thing I must, as a rational scientist, own up to. The Onion Model is experientially-based, not founded on empirical evidence. It is backed by my experience and that of many people I have observed, spoken with and learned from. But, there is no objective research evidence to evaluate it. I wish there were and would love the chance to work on this, but I have other calls on my time. It’s an awkward confession, but I am also confident in the model’s utility.

The Dangers of Models

Another experientially-based model with little research evidence is Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’s “Grief Cycle”^[7]. This is coming under scrutiny at the moment and highlights two dangers a model poses. The first applies to experiential models like these and is called the Representativeness Bias. This bias occurs where we find ourselves seduced by a good explanatory story, which fits our understanding of the world, yet is untested by objective observation. Maybe people find that the grief cycle describes their experience because it makes sense of a confusing set of emotions. Maybe that is true of the Onion Model.

The next bias occurs once we have understood a model and are persuaded by it. We can identify experiences that fit into our model and see them as confirming it. The Confirmation Bias can blind us to disconfirming evidence, or at least lead us to interpret it as aberrant, faulty or a special case.

As a rationalist, I need to expose these concerns and invite comment.

Is the Onion Model the Last Word?

Of course not. No model is ever complete and dozens of practitioners will, even now, be trying to tinker with it, overhaul it, or start afresh. There are always exceptions that fall outside the realm of applicability of a model. But William of Ockham would tell us to keep our models simple until we need to make them more complex. Of all the models, hypotheses, theories and laws of nature I studied at university, very few currently have no known exception, nor hints of an exception: perhaps Newton’s laws of motion, or the three laws of thermodynamics. However, as a physicist, there is only one law I would bet on to be truly universal: Sod’s Law.

___________

References

5. The Handling Resistance Pocketbook, Mike Clayton

6. Resistance to Engagement, Training Journal, August 2011

7. On Grief and Grieving, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’s and David Kessler, Simon & Schuster (2005)

To get pdf copies of the two Training Journal articles on Vroom’s Expectancy Theoryand Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, sign up to my newsletter here, and I will email them to you.

Models are the way that human beings understand our world, and everything we experience. We are constantly building models to explain what we observe, or to predict what we will observe next. Every rule, law, theory, hypothesis, generalisation or process that we make or follow is a model.

Model making is also one part of the way that science evolves, whether it is a hard, mathematical science, like physics or chemistry, or a soft, human science, like sociology or management. In all cases, practitioners observe, build models and then test them against new observations, looking for points of failure that will lead to new insights. Philosophers build models too. Indeed, they were the first scientists and some continue to test their models robustly, albeit using different methods.

Creating a model is a natural human endeavour, so building the Onion Model came easily, as a human being and as a scientist. It is a way to systematise what I have observed, it supports prediction of what my clients and audiences will experience and, perhaps most important to me as a trainer and communicator, it helps me to discuss ideas with other people.

Developing the Onion Model

When we resist change, or reject a new idea, or push back against a sales pitch, or even – dare I say it – become resistant in a training event, we do so for a reason. There are infinitely many reasons, but the Pareto Principle leads us to expect that most instances will be down to variations on a few common reasons. Experience supports this expectation. The model builder must find these common reasons, to accommodate as much experience as possible within the simplest of frameworks.

So my starting point was to list all of the possible reasons I could think of, from my own experience, knowledge and imagination. Grouping these allowed me to identify the fundamental forms of resistance although some come in a few different flavours. Of course, even this description is a simplification and, in truth, the model evolved over a number of years; but more of that later.

The next step is to derive a metaphor that neatly expresses the relationship between the fundamental forms of resistance. Most models use either a mathematical, linguistic or visual metaphor.

I rapidly rejected the idea of a mathematical model. They are often used to give a deceptive sense of scientific rigor which my model does not have. I was also aware that Victor Vroom first expressed his “Expectancy Model”^[1,2] of motivation as an equation and later regretted it. The result is that one of the simplest, best and most useful management models is little known among managers, whilst the weak and less useful “Hierarchy of Needs” model^[3] that Abraham Maslow articulated, and that lends itself easily to a simple visual metaphor (most often, a pyramid), is widely known and cited.

For the Onion Model, the result of trial and error was a visual and physical metaphor. I knew the different forms of resistance could be arranged in a sequence that represents a typical escalation in resistance. I also wanted to convey the impression that, as resistance escalates, it gets harder to deal with; or “hotter”. Having rejected a simple hierarchy, I hit on the metaphor of an onion:

• Onions are made up of layers
• As you peel off one layer, there is another beneath
• Each layer is more intense, more powerful and hotter than the last
• Onions sometimes make you cry

This seemed to me to be an apposite metaphor both physically and visually (concentric layers). The concentric rings image also has the merit of being less widely used than others, like the iceberg, ladder or pyramid.

Creating the Original Model

I originally developed the Onion Model as a way of discussing resistance to change in my consulting, training and seminars. It was well received and evolved over time, reaching its current form in around 2005. It has withstood a lot of scrutiny.

The original inspiration was a seminar I attended in the late 1990s, led by Rick Maurer^[4]. I made a note at that seminar that there are three levels of resistance to change:

Level 1: Informational Resistance

Level 2: Emotional Resistance

Level 3: Exceptional Resistance

These are my words; not Rick’s, but they captured what I understood to be the essence of his argument. I am also unsure whether he intended to prescribe a sequence to them. As I worked with clients, observed change, and discussed these ideas, I started to understand these levels better and to split them into different cases. I re-labelled them and looked for patterns and commonalities. My understanding grew and I became clearer in the way I was able to articulate that understanding. I slowly developed a mature five-layer Onion Model.

I also developed a standard set of labels for the layers of the onion that wholly eschewed jargon, technical language and pseudo-science. I wanted a language that is really simple, so I decided to label each layer with the examples I was giving to illustrate them: the typical thing that you might hear a resister say. So, finally, here were my five layers.

It was working with one particular client where there were serious flaws in the management, that led me to the final, sixth layer, at the core of the onion: “I like to resist”. I recognised that resistance is the default behaviour of some people and thus, the final component of the model slotted into place. It was on a Transactional Analysis course where I was able to discuss this with an expert and learn more about its origins and nature of this behaviour.

From one Model to many…

It was around 2004 when …

Continued tomorrow

__________

References

1. Super Models, Training Journal, August 2008 (Vroom)
2. The Management Models Pocketbook, Mike Clayton
3. Super Models, Training Journal, June 2008 (Maslow)
4. See, for example, Beyond the Wall of Resistance, Rick Maurer, Bard Press (2010)

To get pdf copies of the two Training Journal articles on Vroom’s Expectancy Theory and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, sign up to my newsletter here, and I will email them to you.

Yesterday, he posted “The warning signs of defending the status quo“

He sets out thirteen ways people typically react when confronted with change.

Here’s an exercise:
how could you handle each of these behaviours if you were championing the change?

In this second part, we complete our analysis.

“I don’t understand how to engage with you”

The first component of this really means “I don’t understand what engagement means”.  The word “engagement” is totally abstract.  Whilst the training, development and HR community have come to a fairly uniform understanding of it, to many people it is just another piece of management jargon.  You must be prepared to explain engagement in concrete terms.

My “seven year-old” test applies.  Try out your explanation on a seven year-old.  If they understand you, then you have a good explanation: if not, try again.  I am not for one moment asserting that you should treat colleagues like seven year-olds; still less that they are like them.  But if you can hone your own understanding to that level of clarity, then it will really make sense.

I said above that we have come to a “fairly uniform understanding” of the term in our community, but it does vary in precise interpretation from practitioner to practitioner and, more important, from context to context. 

But defining engagement is only the start.  To make the meaning really concrete and to answer the “how” question, you must also tell me what I need to do to engage with our organisation, and what I can expect it will do to engage with me.

“I don’t like what you want me to do to engage with you”

Now the next layer is exposed.  I don’t like what you want me to do …or maybe what you propose to do.  At its most fundamental level, this resistance reminds us of Douglas McGregor.  He introduced two models of management that he called Theory X and Theory Y^[1].  In a nutshell, Theory X management assumes that people work only for money.  They don’t want to do any more than they are told to do and won’t want to think for themselves.  Theory Y, on the other hand, assumes people can enjoy their work and find it fulfilling.  So Theory Y managers should give their people opportunities to take the initiative and do their best.

McGregor rejected Theory X in favour of Theory Y.  Later, Wiliam Ouchi developed a third model, Theory Z.  Developing Theory Y in the direction of the modern Japanese management practices, Ouchi created a model with many aspects of what we now call engagement: collective responsibility; implicit, informal control; and collective decision-making.

The problem is that some people want Theory X management; they don’t want to think innovatively, to stretch themselves, or to engage. This is not to say that they couldn’t, or even that they wouldn’t, if given the right opportunities and motivation; but where their thinking is, here and now, some people would rather come to work, do as they are told, get paid, and go home. And is there really anything wrong with this?  If you are reading this article, you will certainly find it hard to empathise, and you almost certainly reject any assertions that this is either the best for them; or an inevitable and un-alterable state of affairs.  But it is a source of “I don’t like what you want me to do.”

The solution, if I don’t like what you want me to do, depends on what you are asking of me.  If you showed me the benefits of engagement at the first layer, then I am almost certainly failing to link what you want me to do to those benefits.  So there are two possibilities:

1. You need to link what you want me to give more explicitly to what you assert I will get.  You also need to show me how much time it will take up and why it will be a good use of that time.
2. There really is a mismatch and you need to understand my concerns and re-think your proposition.

“I am scared to engage with you”

Changing the way I behave so that I can engage with you is risky.  I need to do things differently and I may either not feel able to make that change or, worse, I may believe that I never will be able to.

In the first instance, you need to allay my fears of failure by supporting me with advice, guidance, training, and any other interventions you can identify.  Be clear, as with any learning support, that you understand precisely what my needs are and don’t make assumptions based on what your needs are, or my colleagues’ needs.

The second case is harder to deal with.  Self-doubt and, worse, limiting beliefs that I am unable to make the change, can go deep.  You will need to undermine these limiting beliefs with counter-evidence and positive reinforcement of the smallest progress.  This is difficult, but it gets tougher…

“I don’t want to engage with you”

This is not usually personal to you but rather reflects something that you represent to me: management, control, the organisation, society.  Maybe I am feeling stressed and I just want to be difficult.  This animosity is a reaction against something, but rarely against the engagement initiative itself.

You will know from the person concerned and their track record if there is any cynicism that you need to deal with – for example if the organisation has broken trust with them or mistreated them in some way in the past.  You need to show that you are different from previous people they have dealt with and demonstrate how things have changed, meaning that worthwhile engagement is possible.  If necessary, put right any mistakes.

It is, of course, possible that this attitude reflects a desire to misbehave; to cause trouble and resist for the sake of it.  If you suspect that this is the case, then you should be on the lookout for other forms of inappropriate behaviours that are sabotaging the workplace, and deal with them according to good practices and your internal procedures.

The Centre of the Onion

There is one more layer to examine.  Right at the heart of the onion is a final layer, arising not from the situation, but from how we are wired.

Some people don’t want to engage at all.  Their resistance comes fundamentally from a life perspective.  Maybe they can’t be bothered: they want something for nothing from their employer.  Maybe they don’t esteem your organisation worthy of their engagement – they are too good for you.  Or maybe the opposite is true, and they don’t feel worthy enough and so feel that they don’t deserve to get what is on offer, even if they were to give everything.  So they shy away from an equal partnership with the organisation.  All of these responses need far deeper levels of insight to address.  With these cases, you may need to accept defeat or call in specialist assistance, because the skills for addressing deep psychological states like these are beyond most workplace practitioners.

How to Peel the Onion

In dealing with resistance, two rules apply:

The Onion Model does not give all of the answers and the techniques here are only the start.  But even with all of the tools in the world, people vary infinitely.  There are no guarantees.  But, by understanding the source of the resistance you encounter, by treating your resisters with respect, and by working systematically through the layers, you give yourself the best chance of handling the resistance effectively and implementing a successful engagement programme.  Good luck.

If you have enjoyed this article…

Why not subscribe to my regular email newsletter.  It’s free, so try it out.  You wouldn’t want to miss what’s in it (and you can always unsubscribe if you choose to).

[1] I will even send you a free article I wrote for Training Journal on Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y

First, let’s look at what employee engagement is all about.  Figure 1 illustrates the overlap between what engaged employees can give their employer and what a good employer can offer its employees.  True employee engagement sits in the overlap – it is a two-way relationship between people and the organisation they work for.

Engagement for Volunteers

As an aside, let’s also acknowledge the importance of this relationship of engagement between an organisation and its volunteers.  It is every bit as valuable as engagement of paid staff.  Whilst volunteers are essentially defined by their willingness to “give”, engagement in this case represents a far more comprehensive “give” than simply time.  In exchange, an organisation committed to engagement can offer a “get” that represents, for a volunteer, far more than the warm glow of knowing they are contributing to something of worth.

Un-engaged volunteers are often doing little more than going through the motions of their volunteering role, so the return on engagement is as valuable for the volunteering organisation as for an employer, whether it is a charity, a community organisation, a statutory body, an educational endeavour or a cultural institution.

The Big question

Engagement seems like such an obviously “good thing” that we have to ask, why would anybody resist it?  This turns out to be the essential question, because there are many answers and, to deal effectively with the resistance and be successful in delivering genuine engagement in the face of it, we must know which answer is relevant and adapt our response to the resistance we encounter.

The Onion Model

In the Handling Resistance Pocketbook, I introduced The Onion Model of Resistance^TM.  This identifies six “layers of resistance” that we frequently encounter.  Let’s look at that model as it applies to resistance to engagement.

This will give us our different reasons for resistance and, hence, our ways of handling it.  The Onion Model of Resistance to Engagement is illustrated in Figure 2.

Like a real onion, resistance to engagement has layers.  As you peel one away, you will often reveal another beneath it and, if you do, that layer will be hotter than the one before.

The Basics

Before we peel the onion, however, I want to cover the basics.  When you introduce employee or volunteer engagement to your organisation for the first time, you are creating a change.  Therefore, Mike’s first law of change applies. 

And once you encounter resistance, as you will, Mike’s golden rule applies: 

This rule enjoins us to set aside our personal discomfort with the resister’s behaviour, our sense that it feels like a personal attack (it rarely is), or our desire to reciprocate any animosity we feel.  The truth is that, to the resister, their reasons for resisting are good ones.  Often, objectively, we would be compelled to acknowledge that their reasons are sound.  So it makes sense to be respectful not just because it the decent way to behave, but because it will get you better results.

You might, however, deprecate the way the resistance is expressed.  It is quite reasonable to make clear your objection to inappropriate behaviours or language – respectfully.  But separate poor behaviour from the person, and respect them while you reject their approach.  When we feel under pressure, we find it harder to express ourselves clearly and courteously, so this poor behaviour should signal to you that the other person is struggling with the perceived change.

With this noted, let’s look at each layer, one at a time.

“I don’t understand why you want me to engage with you”

Engagement will take effort on my part and, if I can’t see why I should do it, then it is perfectly reasonable to resist.  It isn’t just children who say “why?” when they can’t see the point of something.  You need to be able to show me the benefits of engagement: what’s in it for me?

These may be positive benefits – a real advantage to me for embracing engagement – or they may be negative, in the sense that, by not engaging, I may be worse off.  Let’s start with this case.

A lot of engagement initiatives are a response to commercial or political pressures.  It is a time consuming and therefore costly endeavour, so your organisation must be doing it for a reason.  Help me to understand that reason and show me how it will affect me.  Listen to how I resist and give me the evidence I need, whether it is anecdotal, first-hand experience, or facts and figures.  Also help me to feel the same sense of urgency that you feel.

If there are positive benefits, be sure to stress the benefits that will appeal to me, rather than rattling off a list of abstract concepts like the examples in figure 1.  Instead of “relationships”, tell me how the programme will give me a chance to get to know the people in marketing better, so I can collaborate to make more sales.  Rather than talking about “meaning”, show me how I will have a greater role in talking to schools, like the one my children attend, about what our company does.

“I don’t understand how to engage with you”

… part 2 in my next blog: 11 August 2011.

If you don’t want to miss this article, subscribe to the RSS update, using the button towards the top of the sidebar on the right.  You will get the next part delivered straight to your inbox by email.

I was honoured to be asked by the editor, Elizabeth Eyre, to contribute.  My article “Resistance to Engagement” builds on the onion model to discuss why people sometimes resist such an obviously “good thing”.

Training Journal

Training Journal is a subscription only magazine, and access to the full article archive on their website also requires a subscription.  It is an excellent journal that I have read and contributed for nearly ten years.  If you are a trainer or you commission training, reading it will be a valuable part of your CPD.

However, the subscription model means that any people interested in my article won’t be able to access it, so I will be putting it onto this blog, in two parts, over the next two days.  Here is the intro…

Resistance to Engagement

People want to be engaged.  They want to be treated fairly, to be consulted about what is happening, and to feel valued and supported.  Yet employee engagement initiatives often meet with scepticism, resistance and even hostility.  Why is this?  Can we understand the source of the resistance and build on this understanding to create positive ways to handle it?

Part 1 in my next blog: 10 August 2011.

If you don’t want to miss this article, subscribe to the RSS update, using the button towards the top of the sidebar on the right.  You will get each part delivered straight to your inbox by email.

Mike’s first law of change: “Resistance is inevitable”

There’s no getting around it, so all you can do is to embrace it, and engage with your resisters.  But how can you do so positively, and increase your chances of a successful transition?

That’s the reason I developed my Onion Model of Resistance, which I started working on back in the 1990s.  It helps us to understand the nature of the resistance we encounter and leads us towards effective strategies.

Five Layers of Resistance

There are five layers of resistance that we encounter and they are summarised in the image below. (Click on the image for a full size version)

What we find is that, as we uncover a layer of resistance, there is often another layer beneath it.  Each layer is psychologically deeper, it is emotionally hotter, and it is harder to deal with.

Harmonious Engagement with the Resistance

My Golden Rule for Handling Resistance is:

“I will always respect my resisters”

This means I need to use a harmonious approach that does not clash with them nor seek to put them down.  Our instinctive approaches, to blame, bully, plead, fight, do deals or lie, do not work – or, if they do, are not sustainable.  In my talk – and in the book – I listed a dozen or so techniques, inspired by the principles of Aikido, a Japanese martial art, sometimes called the ‘way of peace’, or ’the way of harmony’.

Three things to remember

The talk ended with three things to remember:

1. Resistance is part of the process.  It is inevitable.
   Don’t fear it: embrace it.
2. There is always a reason for the resistance you get.
   It may not be rational, but you can understand it,
   and you can deal with it.
3. Above all, always respect your resisters.

Get the book

The Onion Model, how to handle resistance to ideas,
to sales, and to change, along with a host of tips are
all in the Handling Resistance Pocketbook.

.

For more on the Onion Model…

…take a look at this earlier blog, on Handling Sales Objections.

The Onion Model

My Onion Model is at the core of Handling Resistance.  It sets out the layers of resistance we encounter – whether to our ideas, to change, or to our sales proposals.  In the video, I am talking about the fourth layer of resistance to a sale; when the potential customer says something like:

‘I don’t like your proposal.’

In the Handling Resistance Pocketbook, you will find three versions of the Onion Model:

A generic version
A version adapted to resistance to change
A version adapted to sales objections

Indeed, one of the drivers for writing it was to put my “onion model of resistance” into the wider world.  I originally developed this in the context of resistance to change and used it in training and facilitation sessions for the last eight years.  Six years ago, a client I was working with on advanced presentation skills asked me for tips on dealing with disagreement and resistance from the audience – sometimes hostile – and I found the model adapted well.  Then, four years ago, I did a seminar on influence for sales-people and was asked how to handle sales objections.  Guess what, the model pretty much worked there too.  So now there are three flavours of one fundamental model – voila.

I will be explaining the onion model on 6 April, 10am, at London Olympia, at the CIPD HRD 2011 Exhibition.